Search This Blog

Common Sense in 324 Words

First people want to live peacefully because this minimises risk and uncertainty as much as possible. A society based on agreements is the result. People will agree that whoever gets real property (land and buildings) with the agreement of the prior owner is now the owner.

The alternatives are absurdities. The only protest at this is original appropriation, but since the appropriator is agreeing with nobody about the land (nobody owns it before the appropriator appropriates it) there is nobody to steal it from. Using 'society' as a plaintiff is reification, so no dice.

The access right of way over somebody else's land is a common-sense presumption uness they put a fence in the way, at which point the common-sense presumption is to leave well alone. Likely this will be the courts' approach as a person cannot know innately what land belongs to whom, what they're doing with that land, or what their position is on using paths on that land.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Contracts are the easiest-to-understand and most convenient form for these agreements to assume. Humans are biologically, epistemologically and ontologically distinctive individuals with minds and free will, or an awfully good simulacrum of free will. Therefore each individual has a personality and past-history distinct from those of any other individual.

This makes debts and property matters of personal accountability, so a debt or a property cannot automatically fall on a certain surviving person unless agreed to by the deceased person and the survivor. Therefore death wipes out a person's debts and property titles unless agreements have been made stating otherwise.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

A 'social contract' is basically an unagreed agreement, and so useless. The state is an unconsented-to parasite born from conquest or religion or some combination depending on which state one looks at. Only those who act to consent to the taxation, regulation and inflation of the state should be made to comply.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.

~~~

Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~ ~ Capital exploits labor because...
... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
& ~ Labor exploits Capital because...
... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy~
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.